Should the man always pay for the engagement ring?!

Kittendreich

We had joint finances anyway so decided together what we would spend and went looking. He paid for it on the day, but that's just a technicality as it is all our money anyway...

Engagement is not a legal status and you can both have a ring, one of you, or neither (or have some other symbolic thing...) - you don't even need to be 'engaged', but it is just a useful term for when you have decided to get married, but not had a wedding yet! In the 'olden days' (and for a very few people who still live by those rules) an engaged couple would be given a slight bit more freedom to spend time with each other and get to know each other before marriage when they would be allowed to be together unchaperoned - as most people live together before marriage that bit doesn't really apply nowadays!

Fly_Baby

euronorris wrote: »

I think the ONLY reason it still feels 'wrong' to some of us that a man hasn't presented an engagement ring is simply tradition and social expectations. They're ingrained in us, so it takes time to shake them off, IYSWIM.

But why shake them off at all?

Person_one

catkins wrote: »

What an oldfashioned view. We did not get engaged as I don't see the point and am not into jewellery. We got married 5 months after meeting because we loved each other. If however we had decided to buy an engagement ring I would not have expected my OH to pay all of it.

As we chose not to have children maybe it is just as well I did not want a ring according to your views

I see no reason why the OP would regret it in the future. If she loves her future OH and they share finances what is the problem?

Its also kind of old fashioned to think that you're only engaged if you have a ring!

Unless you got married in Vegas on the spur of the moment then you were engaged at some point, from the time you both agreed to marry each other to the time you did it!

euronorris

Plans_all_plans wrote: »

There's no way I'd pay towards my engagement ring.

I might compromise on the quality of it if he couldn't afford it, but I wouldn't put any money towards it.

You *might* compromise? So does any potential fiancee have to earn a certain amount then?

Or was it just a poor choice of words.

Person_one

Fly_Baby wrote: »

You are right, I am quite old-fashioned when it comes to courtship. I have no problem sharing finances and earning my own money though. And having or not having kids doesn't come into the equasion, in my view. You didn't get engaged, by your admission - the engagement ring doesn't even figure in your situation then so how can you give it as an example in OP's case?

I wonder if Kate Middleton was asked to chip in for her engagement ring? She (or her parents) could certainly afford it.

Kate Middleton got a hand me down. Make of that what you will!

Interestingly, Kate will be wearing a wedding band and William won't. While he can't exactly get away with pretending to be single, I still wouldn't be too happy about that if I were her.

euronorris

Fly_Baby wrote: »

But why shake them off at all?

Because I disagree with the sentiment behind them.

If you don't, that's fine. No one has to do anything just because I do it that way.

Person_one

euronorris wrote: »

Because it is a symbol of ownership from days gone by when a woman would be considered the posession of a man.

There is no reason why you can't have an engagement ring too. My BIL has one, and still wears it with his wedding ring.

Engagement rings are a relatively new 'tradition' actually, as much a product of DeBeers advertising as anything else.

They do reek of patriarchy though, why not just give her a dowry and get a receipt?

Plans_all_plans

euronorris wrote: »

You *might* compromise? So does any potential fiancee have to earn a certain amount then?

Or was it just a poor choice of words.

Yes, I *might* compromise on quality. While I would have liked a 1 carat ring, I compromised on that. But I wouldn't personally be happy to compromise down to Argos (and I would expect my fiancee to save up to get me a ring I'd like)

I also don't mind the traditions behind engagement rings either.

Fly_Baby

Person_one wrote: »

Kate Middleton got a hand me down. Make of that what you will!

Interestingly, Kate will be wearing a wedding band and William won't. While he can't exactly get away with pretending to be single, I still wouldn't be too happy about that if I were her.

Another beautiful tradition, IMHO - to give your future bride the ring that once belonged to your mother. I would have been honoured if my husband had given me that as my engagement ring.

I am with you about not being happy with the situation when the man doesn't wear the ring. What the hell?

euronorris

Person_one wrote: »

Engagement rings are a relatively new 'tradition' actually, as much a product of DeBeers advertising as anything else.

They do reek of patriarchy though, why not just give her a dowry and get a receipt?

They do reek of it. And to be honest, 'presenting' someone with a ring like that says 'I'm buying your hand in marriage' and 'you now belong to me'.

I know that isn't the intention for most people now, but in that case, why isn't it more equal (with either a ring for both, or none at all)?